Download The Problem Solving Buffet: A Multiple Perspective Approach to Teaching Reflective Problem Solving

The Problem Solving Buffet:
A Multiple Perspective Approach to Teaching Reflective Problem Solving
Asaf Zohar & Catherine Middleton
Schulich School of Business
York University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M3J 1P3
Published in R. Milter, J. Stinson, & W. Gijselaers (Eds.) 1998, Innovation in Business
Education: Theory and Practice, (pp. 249-265). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
The Problem Solving Buffet:
A Multiple Perspective Approach to Teaching Reflective Problem Solving
Abstract
It is widely agreed that effective problem solving is a fundamental skill for managers (e.g.
Whetten & Cameron, 1995). Recognizing the importance of problem solving, most North
American business programs incorporate it into their curriculum in some format. This paper
proposes an integrative model for teaching reflective problem solving in a graduate management
education program. It describes an approach that incorporates the dual educational goals of
improving both analytical and behavioural competencies through inductive and deductive teaching
methods. In particular, our discussion examines the role played by root images or metaphors that
provide students with a generative source of insight into the relatedness of different aspects of
course content and curriculum. We conclude by addressing a number of salient issues that arise as
part of the continuous refinement and development of this approach to teaching this critical
managerial competency.
I. Introduction
Problem solving is a managerial competency that is essential in the complex environments
and varied contexts that characterize today's business world (Porter & McKibbin, 1988; Whetten
& Cameron, 1995). This article proposes an integrative model for teaching problem solving in a
graduate management education program. Drawing on our experiences in teaching problem solving
as part of an MBA-level management skills course, we have developed a model that incorporates
the dual educational goals of improving both analytical and behavioural competencies through
inductive and deductive teaching methods (Waters, 1980). It builds on the synergies and creative
tensions between thinking, doing, learning, and acting, and incorporates them into an intensive
learning experience. This paper highlights some of the learning we have experienced to date, and
the emerging challenges we confront in the ongoing development of our instructional approach.
We begin our discussion with some background information on the course in which we
use this model. We then offer an overview of the fundamental challenges that arise in formulating
and realizing the primary educational goals for teaching reflective problem solving as a
management skill. We address the need to simultaneously develop analytical and behavioural
competencies, in both short and long term time horizons. In particular, our discussion examines
the role played by root images or metaphors that provide students with a generative source of
insight into the relatedness of different aspects of course content and curriculum. We conclude by
addressing a number of salient issues that arise as part of the continuous refinement and
development of this approach to teaching this critical management competency.
The model we describe is used in a management skills course, taken by all MBA students
in their first semester in the MBA program at the Schulich School of Business, York University.
In this course we challenge students to reflect upon the perspectives and frames by which they
view the world. We encourage students to investigate the assumptions underlying their habitual
Zohar & Middleton
1
courses of action, while developing such managerial skills as problem solving, managing change,
negotiating complex issues, working in teams and giving presentations. Problem solving is a major
component of this course. Students are introduced to our model of reflective problem solving
early in the semester, and encouraged to experiment with it throughout the course, and indeed,
throughout the entire MBA program.
As one of the managerial competencies we are developing in this course is the ability to
work in teams, we use student learning groups with 6-8 members in each. Although overall class
size ranges from 55-120 students, the use of groups enables students to engage in discussion in
smaller teams, each of which has access to a group facilitator. (Typically the facilitators are
upper year doctoral students, and each facilitator works with three student teams.) This
configuration has proved effective in enabling students to reflect upon their experiences, to share
their insights, and to develop and practise new skills.
II. Reframing the Dilemma between Behavioural and Analytic Skills
The inherent dilemmas that arise in trying to establish the primary educational goals of
management skills training in general, and problem solving in particular, can be traced directly to
the meaning of the term 'skill'. A common definition describes a skill as "practical knowledge in
combination with ability" (Oxford, 1978, pp. 2009). This definition raises some interesting issues
regarding the possible purpose and scope of management skills training. On one hand, it is
evident that the term skill signifies having a practical ability, or knowing how to do something.
On the other hand, however, it is widely acknowledged that the mastery of any skill requires
certain competencies that lie beyond the mere capacity to engage in a series of identified
behaviours (Bigelow, 1996; McKnight, 1991; Waters, 1980). To be truly skilful at something is
in this sense both a science and an art; it implies not only the knowledge and ability to do
something, but also the conceptual tools for determining when and how a particular skill is to be
successfully applied in different situations and circumstances. The term skilful is, therefore,
Zohar & Middleton
2
associated with both having practical ability (i.e. to know how to do something), as well as
having the power of discrimination or knowledge in a specific matter (Proctor, 1996).
While it is readily apparent that skills training needs to jointly address the parallel and
highly inter-related competencies of "thinking better" and "acting better" (Whetten and Clark,
1996), it is easy to neglect one while pursuing the other. Faced with the pressures for so-called
renewed relevance from the private sector, it is not difficult to understand why many skills
courses taught in business schools have chosen to shift their emphasis toward behavioural
competencies. One indication of this shift is the widespread adoption of management skills texts
that generally emphasize a behavioural model of skills training and development (e.g. Fandt,
1994; Mealiea and Latham, 1996; Proctor, 1996; Whetten & Cameron, 1995). After all, business
training programs have rarely been criticized for a lack of analytically-centred courses! Surely, the
argument goes, students will acquire ample analytical skills elsewhere in more traditional courses
such as organizational behaviour, strategy, and policy. Indeed, Porter and McKibbin (1988) note
that a major criticism of the U.S. business school curriculum is its heavy emphasis on
quantitative analytical skills and techniques.
One way of addressing this dilemma, therefore, is to place primary emphasis on the
development of practical abilities, with less explicit attention given to teaching students how to
critically examine the conceptual grounding of a particular way of doing things. In such cases,
students are implicitly required to accept, on the basis of blind faith or trust, how and why a skill
set is presented to them in a certain way. By failing to explicitly address the basis for determining
why certain ways of enacting a given skill are considered superior to others, the learning
experience largely sidesteps the critical examination of basic assumptions and premises that
underlie any approach to mastering a certain skill set. As a result, a student masters how to do
something, without acquiring the knowledge or understanding of the strengths and limitations of
enacting this skill set in accordance with the context in which it is enacted.
Zohar & Middleton
3
An example of such a situation arises when students use a traditional rational approach to
problem solving, such as the step-by-step framework advanced by Chang and Kelly (1993). An
underlying, but implicit assumption of this approach is that the problems to which it is applied
are best understood in terms of a linear relationship between problem causes and effects. While
linear causality offers a useful way of understanding many situations, there are many complex
situations which cannot be successfully understood based on linear causal relationships. In the
absence of an understanding of the implicit assumptions of the rational approach, students are illequipped to determine whether to use this problem solving approach, or to consider more
appropriate approaches for the problem under consideration. In the situation described above, for
example, it may be advisable to consider other problem solving approaches that adopt mutual
causality and non-linear patterns as their assumptive basis (e.g. systems thinking [Kim, 1994]).
This example highlights some of the problems that arise if one frames the challenge of
teaching reflective problem solving abilities and skills as the discipline of teaching practical
behavioural abilities according to a single 'best' approach. We find this to be a highly problematic
point of departure for successful management training. Shifting the focus away from developing
analytical skills does not resolve the dilemma; it simply avoids it. The main difficulty with the
behavioural approach becomes apparent once we acknowledge that, regardless of the substantive
skill focus, the teaching of effective managerial practice in relation to a given set of behaviours is
ultimately grounded in a series of core assumptions and mental models (Senge, 1990). In order for
students to master managerial practices they must be both behaviourally competent in how to
perform various methods and techniques, and aware of the underlying assumptions that inform
the use of those methods and techniques instead of others.
In the area of problem solving abilities and skills, different underlying assumptions about
the essential nature of successful problem solving have led to the emergence of multiple, and
often contradictory approaches. These core or root assumptions, therefore, determine what kinds
Zohar & Middleton
4
of actions are, and are not associated with successful problem solving practice, as well as the
preferred methods and techniques for doing so. As noted above, a rational approach to problem
solving (e.g. Chang & Kelly, 1993) assumes that there is a single most important cause for any
given problem, that it can be clearly identified as such, and that alternative solutions can be
objectively measured against specific criteria in order to come up with a best course of action. In
contrast, a systems approach (e.g. Kim, 1994) to defining a problem starts with the assumption
that there are always multiple levels of understanding for any situation. In order to investigate
causes of a problem, which are likely to be interrelated, organizational events, patterns, systemic
structures and mental models must be examined. Only once the underlying system dynamics are
understood can possible solutions for a given situation be proposed.
In light of these considerations, a major challenge addressed in our course is the deliberate
involvement and training of students in the critical process of understanding, comparing, and
integrating different approaches to reflective problem solving. While developing their practical
abilities to use a variety of different methods and approaches, we consider it essential to provide
students with the conceptual tools necessary to compare and combine different approaches to
problem solving. Incorporating these skills into the core learning objectives of the course provides
students with the necessary conceptual and analytical skills for determining, in both the short and
long term, which problem solving approach, or combination of approaches, is best suited to a
particular situation or issue.
We have found that several key implications arise once the teaching of problem solving
skills is framed in this manner. For example, we consider it to be of little long-term value to teach
students the practical competencies associated with one or even several approaches to problem
solving, without providing sufficient insight into the underlying assumptions, values, beliefs, and
world views that ground the approaches themselves. Instead, the type of learning outcomes we
strive to achieve include: (1) knowledge of how to perform a set of managerial skill or skills
Zohar & Middleton
5
according to several approaches; (2) an ability to determine when a newly-learned approach to
performing a certain managerial skill is most or least appropriate in certain situations, and an
understanding as to why this is the case; (3) an ability to determine when it may be useful to
explore and perhaps adopt different approaches to carrying out the problem solving process. The
following section describes the core learning goals we have adopted in teaching creative
approaches to problem solving.
III. Developing a Reflective Approach to Problem Solving
We noted earlier that our main educational goal is to focus on the process of creatively
thinking about and resolving problematic issues. We describe reflective problem solving1 as the
process of thinking about a situation, constructing and reconstructing it in different ways that
seem consistent with its nature, so that one can say something that may provide a basis for
intelligent, innovative action. Based on this definition, it is apparent that our focus is on learning
about the process and core competencies associated with creativity and innovation, rather than
studying the products of earlier innovation (Gardner, 1965). Another way of thinking about the
kind of abilities we try to shape and promote is that we attempt to develop students' capacities
for engaging in what Argyris and Schön (1978) have termed 'reflective practice', where
practitioners actively engage in the process of thinking about their thinking. We have translated
this broad vision of problem solving skills learning into the following instructional goals:
1. Introduce students to a variety of approaches and methods for engaging a problematic and/or
complex situation or issue, instead of arguing for 'one best way' of framing problems.
1
We endeavour to introduce our students to innovative, creative ways of engaging and
reflecting upon problematic situations. The phrase 'creative problem solving' encompasses some
of our objectives, but does not fully describe our approach. We currently use the term 'reflective
problem solving' in an attempt to incorporate innovative, creative and reflective practices in
framing, deframing and reframing problematic issues and situations.
Zohar & Middleton
6
2. Challenge students to combine these multiple perspectives, procedures and methods in ways
that maximize the creative leverage around problematic issues and situations.
3. Describe the fundamental challenge of reflective problem solving as the ability to master the
art of building on the synergies arising from multiple perspectives and approaches to framing,
negotiating, and resolving problematic situations and issues.
In order to present students with a way of thinking about problem solving that
emphasizes the value and relevance of employing multiple, diverse approaches, we distinguish
between what we describe as a problem solving process and an approach to problem solving. We
refer to a problem solving process as a continuous, non-sequential series of generic operations
involving problem/issue identification; generating ideas, selecting ideas, and implementing ideas2.
Hence, the problem solving process represents a general mode of inquiry into problems that is
common to any particular way of undertaking these generic stages.
The particular manner by which one carries out this generic process is captured by the
term problem solving approach, which can be characterized as a distinct or specialized problem
solving procedure, replete with a specified set of methods, techniques, as well as a series of core,
underlying assumptions about the fundamental nature of problems, analysis, and successful
problem resolution. In our course, we introduce students to a range of approaches, including
Chang and Kelly's (1993) Step-by-Step approach, Systems Thinking (Kim, 1994; Senge, 1990) and
De Bono's Six Thinking Hats (1990) and Teach Yourself to Think (1996) approaches. Table 1
2
Whetten and Cameron (1995) employ a similar four-stage model which they describe as a
rational problem solving model. Following Proctor (1996), De Bono (1995) and others, we have
modified and broadened the meaning of each stage in order to capture a more generic framework
that can apply to all problem solving situations, regardless of underlying assumptions. For
example, a rational model implies linear cause and effect, but the generic problem solving process
is appropriate in all situations, regardless of implicit assumptions about the nature of the
problem at hand.
Zohar & Middleton
7
summarizes some of the main points of distinction between these approaches. The methods and
techniques specific to each approach are outlined in Table 2.
Table 1: Comparing Different Approaches To Problem Solving
Steps in the Problem
Solving Process
Identifying Problems and
Issues
Rational Problem Solving
De Bono
Systems Thinking
#1: Define The Problem
A. Develop a Problem
Statement.
B. Identify a "desired state"
or goal.
TO: Directing Thinking
• Identify the aim, purpose,
and objective of
thinking.
• Determine the desired
outcome of the thinking
process.
• Defining problematic
issues through systemic
patterns
#2: Analyze Potential
Causes
A. Identify potential
causes.
B. Determine most likely
causes.
C. Identify root causes.
Generating and Evaluating
Ideas
Selecting Ideas
Implementing Ideas
Underlying Assumptions
Zohar & Middleton
#3: Identify Possible
Solutions
A. Generate multiple,
possible solutions.
B. Determine best
solutions.
#4: Select Best Solution
A. Develop and assign
weights to criteria.
B. Apply the criteria.
C. Choose best solution.
#5: Develop Action Plan
A. Divide solution into
sequential tasks.
B. Develop contingency
plans.
#6: Implement Solution &
Evaluate Progress
A. Monitor the action
plan.
B. Implement contingency
plans.
C. Evaluate results.
Linear Thinking:
•
Maximize convergent
thinking
•
Distinction between
creative and rational
problem solving
processes
LO: Looking
• Determine available
information & needed
information about the
situation.
PO: Possibility
• Generate possible
solutions and
approaches.
• Seeking interrelationships of elements
(e.g. causes, symptoms)
rather than cause-effect
relationships
• Determine goodness of fit
between issue/situation
and generic systemic
structures.
SO: Decision & Choice
• Selecting among
possible solutions.
• Look for high leverage
actions that can reframe
existing systemic
patterns and structures.
GO: Action
• Implementing the
outcomes of thinking.
• Action plans based on
understanding of
fundamental forces that
lead to present systemic
structures.
Lateral Thinking:
• the generative,
constructive, and
creative aspects of
thinking
• Maximize divergent
thinking
Systemic Thinking:
• Thinking in Loops
• Stretching time
dimension
• Identifying Systemic
Structures
• Engaging Mental
Models
8
Table 2: Preferred Methods of Problem Solving Approaches
Steps in the Problem
Solving Process
Identifying Problems and
Issues
Generating and Evaluating
Ideas
Selecting Ideas
Implementing Ideas
Rational Problem
Solving
Define The Problem &
Analyze Potential
Causes:
• Fishbone
• Brain-storming
• Force Field Analysis
• Pareto Chart
Identify Possible
Solutions:
• Brainstorming
• Paired Choice Matrix
De Bono
Systems Thinking
TO: Directing Thinking
Brainstorming
Select Best Solution:
• Brainstorming
• Criteria Rating Form
Develop Action Plan,
Implement Solution &
Evaluate Progress:
• Interviewing
• Focus groups
• Questionnaires
• Observation
• Force Field Analysis
SO: Decision & Choice
LO: Looking
Six Thinking Hats
PO: Possibility
Six Thinking Hats
Six Thinking Hats
Dynamic Thinking Tools:
• QQ Diagrams
• Behaviour Over Time
(BOT) Diagrams
• Causal Loop Diagrams
Structural Thinking Tools:
• Graphical function
diagrams
• Structure-behaviour pairs
• Policy structure diagrams
Dynamic Thinking Tools:
• Systems Archetypes
GO: Action
Dynamic Thinking Tools
Six Thinking Hats
Computer Based Tools:
• Computer models
• Management flight
simulators
• Learning labs
The distinction between a problem solving process and a particular approach to carrying
out this process represents a pivotal stage in learning about both the art and science of problem
solving. Students who begin the course expecting to acquire recipes for behavioural problem
solving skills begin to understand that different practical abilities are required, depending on the
approach chosen to resolve a problem. The key competency then expands to include not only
how 'to do' a particular approach, but also the ability to make informed choices between the
different possible approaches to problem solving. It is an understanding of the particular
characteristics, challenges and opportunities presented by the issue or situation under
consideration that guides choices and actions.
Based on this brief account of our objectives, it is apparent that we are targeting an area of
management practice that involves fairly ambiguous and non-specific behavioural prescriptions.
In trying to teach this elusive and often enigmatic managerial competency, we have realized that
Zohar & Middleton
9
while it is possible to create structured learning exercises that enable students to experience and
develop short-term abilities and skills in particular approaches and methods, our main educational
goals are gradual, emergent, and fairly abstract in nature.
IV. The Problem Solving Buffet: A Metaphor for Comparing and Integrating
Problem Solving Approaches
In our approach to teaching students to compare and integrate multiple approaches to
problem solving, we attempt to build on the central role of metaphor in the process of knowledge
construction (Morgan, 1980). We build on the view that the process of understanding and
knowledge creation always occurs within the context of the limitations and strengths of a
particular way of seeing, which is rooted in partial interpretations of certain images or metaphors.
One can never disengage oneself from the pervasive role of metaphor as the constitutive force
that creates the interpretive domain within which we engage a given phenomenon. To seek
knowledge or understanding independent of some form of metaphorical construction is, at best,
an illusion3. Thus, an image can serve as a root or generative source of knowledge by allowing the
observer to engage reality in new ways (Zohar and Morgan, 1996).
Since knowledge emerges and develops as a domain of extended metaphor, we attempt to
provide students with an image that captures the essential features of our analytical approach.
We introduce students to the image of a problem solving 'buffet' that represents one possible way
of thinking about or framing the relationship between the generic problem solving process, and
multiple problem solving approaches (see Figure 1).
3
For example, it has been demonstrated that all of organization science has been
constructed on this metonymical reductive kind of understanding (see Morgan, 1980; 1986).
Zohar & Middleton
10
Figure 1:
Framing the Relationship between the Generic Problem Solving Process
and Multiple Problem Solving Approaches
Identifying
Problems/
Issues
RPS
Generating &
Evaluating
Ideas
Implementing
Ideas
6 Hats Systems
Selecting
Ideas
The buffet image invites students to visualize the problem solving process as a series of stations
in a lavish buffet. While these stages represent distinctive courses, it is possible to change the
flavour of the food offered at each stage of the buffet by spicing it in different ways.
Accordingly, we have positioned a series of 'spices' at the centre of the buffet, which can
radically transform the taste of the food at any station of the buffet. The spices are situated on a
turntable, which highlights the fact that they can be used at any stage of the buffet to fit the
tastes and preferences of any diner.
Zohar & Middleton
11
Perhaps one of the main strengths of this metaphor of problem solving is its flexibility.
While the buffet offers a fixed set of main dishes (the generic process), it directs critical attention
toward the vast possibilities that arise once the process of solving problems is framed as the art
and science of applying a variety of spices (problem solving approaches). Although we would
argue strongly that the main dishes should not change, there is no limit to the types and variety
of spices that can be accommodated in this model, nor is there any restriction on the order in
which the main dishes are consumed. The key to successful problem solving is an ability to
frame, deframe and reframe the situations at hand. Our particular buffet offers a variety of
approaches to help the problem solver in this task, but our choices of approaches are not the
only ones that can be incorporated. For example, two other approaches that would provide
additional leverage are synectics (Gordon, 1961) and
Janusian or paradoxical thinking
(Rothenberg, 1979). The buffet metaphor enables the reflective problem solver to recognize and
draw upon approaches that may not be traditionally considered when addressing problematic
situations or issues.
While it is possible to use a single spice throughout the buffet, mastering the use of
multiple approaches involves various combinations of spices throughout the problem solving
process. Ultimately, an individual can develop contingency models that overcome the
shortcomings and build on the strengths of various approaches in relation to a given issue or
situation. For example, the step-by-step approach offers guidance at all stages in the generic
model, but it does not deal well with ambiguous situations, or with situations where there are
numerous and intertwined root causes of the problem. Alternately, systems thinking can help a
problem solver understand systemic causes of a problem, but may offer little in the way of
concrete advice when developing action or implementation plans. In a traditional problem solving
process that relies upon a single best way to solve a problem, alternative approaches alone (such
as systems thinking) would not be sufficient to resolve the situation, and would not be
Zohar & Middleton
12
incorporated. But if the buffet model is adopted, the most appropriate methods from each
approach can be incorporated into the overall process, creating maximum leverage and moving
away from 'one best way' thinking.
We find that our buffet image offers students a palatable way of ingesting some relatively
challenging food for thought. The representation of the problem solving process as a buffet which
can be spiced through the selective use of different problem solving approaches offers students a
way of making sense of an unorthodox and unfamiliar analytical approach to problem solving.
Similar to any metaphor, it attempts to utilize the power of playfulness, humour, and making the
strange familiar as means of generating a fundamentally new understanding of the subject matter.
Since these traits are also common characteristics of creative approaches to problem solving (De
Bono, 1993), we find that the buffet itself also allows students to learn experientially about
reflective problem solving through the way we frame our analytical approach. By 'walking the
walk' as well as 'talking the talk', we are able to provide students with a model for problem
solving through our teaching approach.
Perhaps the most important aspect of our buffet is that it has proven to be a useful image
for stimulating students' reflective learning processes. By making explicit the different ways
through which it is possible to undertake the problem solving process, it helps us maximize the
students' opportunities for discovering points of creative leverage at the level of underlying
assumptions that can fundamentally reframe the way problems are perceived, analyzed,
diagnosed and resolved. The successive introduction of new spices (problem solving approaches)
to the buffet proceeds along the same basic analytic approach. This process of framing, deframing
and reframing is summarized in Table 3.
Zohar & Middleton
13
Table 3: Framing, Deframing and Reframing
1. Framing - making the implicit explicit
One Best Way: making explicit the dominant, habitual framing of issues
according to a favoured problem solving approach
Mental Models: making explicit favoured/habitual mental models that
ground one's preference for a single best way approach.
2. Deframing the habitual/familiar
Revisiting the familiar in 'strange' ways via:
a) exploring alternatives to 'one best way' thinking: decoupling the
application of favoured problem resolution approaches to all situations
and circumstances.
b) a contingency approach: search for a goodness of fit between the nature
of the problem, & multiple approaches and methods.
3. Reframing underlying assumptions
Short term:
• build on immediate, experientially based success stories
• expose students to the creative leverage opened by applying multiple
approaches
Long term:
• a learning by doing process that through time removes the pervasive,
reflexive tendency to turn to habitual ways of framing problematic
situations
In sum, the buffet metaphor provides students with a generative source of insight on this
approach to creatively framing, deframing, and reframing complex issues and problems. It enables
us to emphasize that a creative approach to problem solving frequently requires moving away
from habitual and traditional views on what constitutes an 'appropriate' solution to a given
problem. The buffet image also makes students more receptive to the view that there is more than
one way to solve a problem, and that the reliance on a single approach to problem solving, or a
limited number of techniques, may not be sufficient in all situations. It offers them a way of
framing the problem solving process as an iterative, reflective journey through a buffet full of
exciting possibilities, which can be spiced in dramatically different ways through the informed
use of multiple approaches to problem solving.
To incorporate this metaphor and our overall approach to teaching reflective problem
solving into the course, we use several techniques. Students are introduced to the buffet at the
beginning of the problem solving module. Classes in this module usually begin with a discussion
Zohar & Middleton
14
of a particular problem solving approach, highlighting assumptions inherent in the approach. The
class then breaks out into teams for further discussion and application of the specific approach to
a case study. Facilitators work with teams to expand their understanding of the overall buffet
metaphor, and to hone their uses of the particular approaches and combinations of approaches
possible within the buffet framework. The class then reconvenes to share experiences and
observations based on the case study. Throughout this process, students are encouraged to reflect
upon their thinking, i.e. to become reflective practitioners. This objective is further developed
through the written assessment in the course, which requires students to hand in a 'reflective
practice report' for each case assignment, in addition to a summary of the actions they would
recommend in the case. The reflective practice report (done by individual students or by groups,
depending upon the assignment) must detail students' thinking about the overall problem solving
process, and about the specific combination of approaches they used in formulating their
recommendations in the case.
As a teaching method, this approach has proven to be a valuable means of creating
sufficient creative leverage around students' initial framing of problem solving skills. Finally, it
provides both students and instructors with a common language or 'grammar' for engaging our
core learning goals and objectives.
V. Concluding Remarks: Reflections on Future Directions
In sum, our approach to teaching reflective problem solving is to introduce students to a
way of thinking about problematic organizational issues that promotes a mode of reflective
organizational practice (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Throughout the course, we try to promote
students' active reflection at the level of core assumptions that inform the process of resolving
complex organizational issues and situations. Our aim is to get students to strive to realize a
'goodness of fit' between the basic characteristics of a particular issue, and the underlying
assumptions, premises, strengths, and weaknesses of a number of different approaches to
Zohar & Middleton
15
problem solving.
The problem solving buffet offers students an innovative means of tackling problems and
issues that, as present or future managers, they are likely to face on a daily basis. While we
present the buffet metaphor in the context of an MBA management skills course, we are
increasingly certain that the underlying ideas have currency well beyond the MBA curriculum.
The use of multiple approaches challenges students to make their own mental models explicit,
and encourages them to move beyond habitual responses to problematic situations. Students who
master the use of this buffet-style, reflective approach to problem solving move beyond the
simple, short-term application of learned behavioural responses and analytical skills. Through
their learning experiences in this course, they take the first critical steps toward the longer term
learning goals of developing the necessary power of discrimination or knowledge of problem
solving that characterizes the movement from skill-based insight into wisdom (Waters, 1980).
It is not always easy for students to make the transition from non-reflective skill
application and behaviour to a more reflective, explicit means of operating, particularly in the
context of an MBA program where these ideas are not always integrated throughout the two year
curriculum. While some students intuitively grasp the concepts inherent in the buffet metaphor
early on, others visibly struggle with it. Not everyone is comfortable with the use of metaphor as
a learning approach, and the idea of mixing and matching a collection of problem solving tools
may be difficult for some to accept. As students attempt to achieve a goodness of fit between a
problem context and the approach or method used to investigate it, they may become frustrated,
confused, and sometimes angry. In addition, the approaches we introduce are not always easily
subdivided into ready-made recipes, replete with discrete methods and tools; thus it is a challenge
for students to determine how best to apply them. The latter observation also highlights an
opportunity for future research. It is our underlying assumption that the short term frustration
students experience will be rewarded by long term educational gain. This is an assumption that
Zohar & Middleton
16
needs to be investigated, perhaps through longitudinal study of students' problem solving skills
toward the end of the program and beyond.
In spite of these challenges, we are convinced of the value of our approach. As noted
earlier, although we concentrate on issues specifically related to problem solving, the process we
outline has a broader appeal as a means of understanding organizational issues. In assessing any
situation, our generic buffet metaphor serves as a framework for understanding a situation or
problematic issue(s), determining what actions are necessary, implementing the actions and
evaluating their effectiveness. At the very core of our approach is the process of framing,
deframing and reframing the situation. This process enables a reflective practitioner to gain new
understandings of the situation, and intelligently draw from a variety of tools and techniques (the
spices on the buffet table) to take any actions that are necessary. Moreover, the analyst is not
limited to the tools and techniques we have introduced, but can incorporate many others,
provided that they are used with an understanding of the assumptions that accompany them.
The problem solving buffet offers an innovative approach to the challenge of teaching
problem solving as a management skill. By integrating the application of specific learned skills
(e.g. the tools advocated by various problem solving approaches) with an understanding of the
fundamental differences between various problem solving approaches (making the implicit
assumptions explicit), we are bridging the gap between teaching 'thinking skills' and teaching
'acting skills'. At this stage of our own reflective practice as facilitators of this learning experience,
we find that our approach offers a means to progress from short term skill and technique
acquisition, to longer term learning objectives that transcend the domain of 'problem solving skills'
and approach mastery of 'critical thinking skills'. Along with our students, we are constantly
framing, deframing and reframing our own assumptions and approaches to teaching core critical
thinking competencies for successfully dealing with an increasingly complex and turbulent world.
Zohar & Middleton
17
References
Argyris, C. A., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning : A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bigelow, J. D. (1996). "Management Skill Teachers Speak Out." Journal of Management
Education, 20 (3), 298-318.
Chang, R. Y., & Kelly, P. K. (1993). Step-By-Step Problem Solving. Irvine, CA: Richard Chang
Associates.
De Bono, E. (1990). Six Thinking Hats. London: Penguin.
De Bono, E. (1993). The Mechanism of Mind. New York: Penguin.
De Bono, E. (1996). Teach Yourself to Think. New York: Penguin.
Fandt, P. M. (1994). Management Skills: Practice and Experience. Minneapolis: West Publishing
Company.
Gardner, J. W. (1965). Self-renewal. New York: Harper & Row.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity. New York: Collier.
Kim, D. H. (1994). Systems Archetypes II. Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Communications Inc.
Mealiea, L. W., & Latham. G. P. (1996). Skills for Managerial Success. Toronto: Irwin.
McKnight, M. R. (1991). "Management Skill Development: What It Is. What It Is Not." In J. D.
Bigelow (Ed.) Managerial Skills: Explorations in Practical Knowledge, (pp. 204-218).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G. (1980). “Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory.”
Administrative Science Quarterly. 25 (4): 605-622.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management Education and Development. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Proctor, M. (1996). The Essence of Management Skills. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Rothenberg, A. (1979). The Emerging Goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
Waters, J. A. (1980). "Managerial Skill Development." Academy of Management Review, 5 (3),
449-453.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1995). Developing Management Skills. (3rd ed.). New York:
Harper Collins College Publishers.
Zohar & Middleton
18
Whetten, D. A., & Clark, S. C. (1996). "An Integrated Model for Teaching Management Skills."
Journal of Management Education, 20 (2), 152-181.
Zohar, A., & Morgan, G. (1996). "Refining Our Understanding of Hypercompetition and
Hyperturbulence." Organization Science, 7 (4), 460-464.
Zohar & Middleton
View publication stats
19